One woman, 69 babies...really?

[MissVantaBlack]

DD was asking what was the maximum number of children a woman could have. DH told her about a Russian peasant in the 18th century, who apparently had 69 babies over the course of her lifetime - mostly multiple births; she had pregnancies resulting in live births 27 times. This is recounted in The Guinness Book of Records:

www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-prolific-mother-ever

But could this really be true? I'm sceptical...

• assuming she married in her mid-teens and got pregnant straight away, and that she remained fertile for around thirty years, that is a pregnancy every 13 months on average
• it being the 18th century, there was no formula, and she being a peasant, there would be no wet nurse. So, breast feeding only, which inhibits ovulation and pregnancy for a long time
• would any body physically be able to nurture and carry so many babies? Thinking of the leaching of minerals to each foetus, and the effect on a woman's pelvic floor of so many pregnancies and deliveries, I'm surprised she had the physical reserves to conceive so many, and that she didn't develop an incompetent cervix or prolapsed uterus which would have made it difficult to carry to term
• would birth records in the 18th century be entirely reliable?

I think this is a physical impossibility, but DH is adamant that if it's in the Guinness Book of Records then it must be true. What do you think?

Yeah it's possible - triplets/twins/quads most born prem most stillborn

But it's not just a case of her having to be a hyper ovulater as they call it because the second wife only had multiples too,that must have been some super sperm the husband had.

I am sceptical. I think more likely many wives to one man, but not recoded as being actually different women. Just “Mrs X”

That many surviving children? No way.

Sounds very far fetched to me,almost 90 kids and only 3 didn't survive infancy in the 1700's.

Yep. And pregnancies with multiple babies are much more likely to end in premature birth, which would significantly increase mortality.

Yeah it's possible - triplets/twins/quads most born prem most stillborn Sad

But it says that only two out of 69 didn't survive infancy

nypost.com/2022/06/23/rare-condition-has-made-woman-the-worlds-most-prolific-mother/amp/

Have a read of this article from a modern day example.

A woman who was married off age 12 and had a medical condition that made her super fertile. And indeed stopping having children would apparently be a risk to her.

The original story above sounds implausible until you read this article. Then it sounds unlikely but possible.

I remember reading the Guinness Book of Records as a child and being utterly fascinated by this entry.

Whether it's true or not I have no idea.

I can say, however, that EBF doesn't necessarily stop you ovulating for a long time as I know from personal experience. My periods came back after 4 months despite EBF and I got pregnant again a couple of months later.

It wasn’t uncommon in the past for younger children to actually be grandchildren registered incorrectly to save their mother carrying the “shame” of having a child whilst unmarried.

Could have been that this woman did have a high number of children but not as many as the records indicate. I guess other people would lose count after the first dozen or so. It might not even have been babies belonging to the couple’s own children. It could have been a way of hiding baby farming.

Oops I read it the opposite way 🤣

Yeah multiple wives recorded as Mrs X

there was no formula, and she being a peasant, there would be no wet nurse. So, breast feeding only, which inhibits ovulation and pregnancy for a long time

Not always true though is it. You're warned that exclusively bf is not an effective contraception and many people (myself included) have their first period 4 weeks after giving birth despite only bf.

There might have been no formula, but they certainly managed to feed the babies of mothers who died in childbirth. Presumably either relatives who'd recently had children would help out or, I believe, they used goats milk.

There was an old woman who lived in a shoe,
She had so many children she didn't know what to do....

its probably true, the guiness book of records has a very high bar, it was probably researched thoroughly. Unless it says in the book that it was "unconfirmed" etc

And obviously, we are talking about the most extreme number ever, it is going to be pretty high, probably lots of women had the same or more pregnancies, but fewer live births. If you think there is less than 1 in a million chance that number of babies survived, well, there is probably millions of other cases throughout history of that number of multiple pregnancies but not so many surviving, which puts it more in perspective

😆 it has nothing to do with the man's sperm. That's like saying 'Twins are common on my husbands side so we are more likely to have twins". Nope.

I've been thinking about this again (poor woman). As pp said @Iris1976 nothing to do with the man's sperm (although he probably took all the "credit" ). I'd have thought it highly possible that the two wives were related somehow, meaning they could have had a genetic predisposition to multiple ovulation. People didn't travel much then, did they? And I think it was relatively common for e.g. the man to marry the wife's sister if the wife died (although not in this case) to help with the family.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

A few other cases on there. However then ones with the number in italics are unconfirmed/highly unlikely. Including this lady.